Islamic State militants in charge of the ancient site of Palmyra in Syria beheaded antiquities expert Kaled al-Assad, 81, after he refused to disclose the location of ancient treasures from the city. ISIS militants are said to have wanted the treasures to sell or destroy. ISIS’s ongoing destruction of ancient artifacts in the name of battling “idolatry” seems to be gradually seeping into the popular construction of historiography. In his new book Magicians of the Gods (forthcoming), Graham Hancock speaks of the “Islamic hatred of history” that he blames for the destruction of Egyptian heritage from the Arab conquest on.

I can’t help but think that this view of Islam reflects ISIS more than anything else, since previous generations attributed the destruction of Egyptian temples not to the religion of Islam but to medieval barbarism, found worldwide. Christians, after all, are not immune to such destruction; in the Dark Ages they ransacked Roman ruins, the iconoclasts destroyed statues and paintings, and in the Reformation they smashed Gothic stained glass and statuary with zeal. Yet we wouldn’t say Christians had a “hatred of history.” Puritanical Islam, including the Wahhabi strain in Saudi Arabia (also followed by ISIS and the Buddha-destroying Taliban) that happily bulldozes medieval ruins to build hotels in Mecca, may be anti-history, but Muslims have also been the caretakers of ancient ruins for centuries, and Egypt remains an overwhelmingly Muslim country that is nevertheless proud of its ancient heritage. In short: modern Wahhabism, not Islam in general, is most closely associated with the destruction of ancient sites in the name ending idolatry. Earlier eras featured religious extremists to be sure, such as Sheikh Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr, who in 1379 broke the nose off the Sphinx in the name of combatting idolatry (Maqrizi, Al-Khitat 1.41), but they received criticism from their more cosmopolitan contemporaries, who wrote poems rhapsodizing over the glories of ancient monuments. As I have documented repeatedly over the past few years, Islamic authors, writing in both Arabic and Persian, took a great interest in the primordial past and did their very best to try to discover (or invent) historical information to discover that past. What’s infuriating is that Hancock himself knows this—and he quotes some of it in his book! As I said yesterday, I won’t review the book’s specific claims yet, but in my reading last night I found Hancock quoting the Sūrid pyramid legend. Once again he managed to bungle his sources. Hancock knows the story only from its quotation in John Greaves’s 1646 book Pyramidographia, where that author had attributed it to Ibn ’Abd al-Hakam. Hancock identifies that author as the ninth century historian of the same name through the rigorous method of Googling his name and assuming they were the same. As I discovered earlier this summer by actually reaching out to experts in medieval Arabic historiography, this text does not appear in any known work of al-Hakam, and cannot be genuinely his since it records fictitious accounts of events that were happening while al-Hakam was active and had therefore not yet developed into legends. Greaves’s true source is unknown, but probably a later pseudonymous compilation of legends similar to the Akhbār al-zamān, the oldest surviving version of the Sūrid legend, and itself falsely attributed to al-Mas‘udi.In fact, the Arabic authors loved Egyptian history so much that they had three different versions of the pyramid legend, attributing their construction to Sūrid, to Hermes Trismegistus, and to a third figure: Shaddād bin ’Ād, the mythical king of Iram of the Pillars in the Thousand and One Nights (nights 277-279). He was the son of ’Ād, and as I learned in my readings yesterday, he was one of the Nephilim-Giants! This information comes from a Persian-language Islamic author named al-Tabari, who wrote a massive history of the world around 915 CE (the English version, unread by me, is forty volumes long), which was abridged by another fellow named al-Ghazali, who recorded the following in his History of the Prophets, chapter 19, around 1100 CE:

The ’Ādites were stronger in body and more powerful than the Thamudites. There was no nation on earth equal to the ’Ādites in tallness or strength. Every man was twelve spans high and some of them were so strong that if they struck the foot on the dry ground they would sink into it to the knee. They built houses in their country which were in keeping with their strength and of almost everlasting construction up to this day: if you see a strange building it is called ’Ādian: “Irani dzāt imad, &c.” It is said in the Koran, “Do you not know how God has acted with the ’Ādites, who were the Lords of ’imād?” ’Imād is a pillar and the meaning of the passage is that they were in stature like pillars; every one of them was like several pillars in height and strength. In another passage they are compared with palm roots: “they are like palm roots strewed about on the ground.” (trans. Aloys Sprenger, adapted)

(Take the attribution to al-Ghazali with a grain of salt; it’s the name on the document, but I have no information on whether he actually wrote it.) The details don’t interest me too much, but what does is the fact that in the medieval Islamic world, ancient ruins were attributed to the work of giants, just as they were at the same time in medieval Europe, and had been in ancient Greece before them. This was one reason that the “gigantic” constructions of Egypt were attributed to the ’Ādites. I want to finish with two quick notes that I have rather little to say about. First, a new analysis published in Antiquity (with photo section) found that a piece of rock art in Utah that creationists claim depicts a pterosaur is actually five different images of a human and various animals. Apparently, a man named John Simonson drew a chalk outline around the shapes and declared the whole thing a weird looking bird, later suggested to be a pterosaur. The drawing at top shows his outline, and the photo at bottom has been processed using DStretch to reveal the underlying original art. Beneath the chalked outline, there was no flying monster, just regular old rock art.

Additionally, the Epoch Times published yet another piece about fantasist Enrico Mattievich, the Brazilian physicist who believes that the ancient Greeks visited Brazil (naturally) and Peru. This time he claims that Ovid’s description of Cadmus slaying a serpent with three-forked tongue (which he mistakes for three tongues) represents the serpentine Amazon River and its three main branches, while its venom and triple row of teeth represents Amazonian volcanoes! This claim is so silly, it’s hard to know where to start: Ovid is a very late Roman version of a Greek story, earlier forms of which did not specify three tongues. All forms of the myth specify that the dragon lived at the Spring of Ares (a real site) at Thebes, which in case you didn’t know, is not located in the Amazon. Sources that agree on this are: Apollodorus (Library 3.22), Apollonius of Rhodes (Argonautica 3.1179f.), Hyginus (Fabulae 6 and 148). In short, the three-forked tongue and triple row of teeth were apparently Ovid’s addition to make the snake seem more fearsome. They don’t appear in any other Classical version before or after him.

Graham Hancock not doing research. I beg to differ, after all, even if his "research" took all of twenty-three minutes on the computer. He did take the time to do this between looking at himself in the mirror and answering E-mails from his legion of fans....all six of them.

Reply

Bob Jase

8/19/2015 08:44:17 am

That 'pterosaur' is pterrible - the wings and posture are totally wrong.

Well, frick, there goes our Rodan vs. Gyaos debate! (I have been compiling data for years in preparation. I even have the Gamera reboots from the '90s -- which I highly recommend.)

Reply

Jean Stone

8/21/2015 01:56:45 pm

Gyaos, definitely Gyaos. But Guiron could take both of them.

Reply

Michael Macrae

8/21/2015 09:01:57 pm

Jason, I note that you have no problem citing Hellenistic writers when it suits your agenda. I might remind you of a previous paragraph you wrote.

"Hellenistic writers were working 1,000 years or
more after the Mycenaeans. By that point they
literally thought that the Mycenaeans were giants
who employed Cyclopes to build their buildings,
and they couldn't tell the difference between
animal bones and human giants. Their testimony is
helpful only when supported by archaeology or
sources from the time period in question.
Otherwise, it's about as helpful as using the
musical "Camelot" to investigate the Middle Ages.
You have to exercise at least something resembling
critical thinking."

I'm afraid I don't follow. I'm not citing Hellenistic writers here because they were "right" about Cadmus but because they are the only sources and therefore it's important to note that they contradict what Mattievitch claims. They were all writing 1,000 years or more after the fact, which is why it's impossible to give credence to any of their claims absent other evidence, which Mattievitch can't provide.

Reply

Michael Macrae

8/22/2015 07:05:46 pm

The Hellenistic writers you cited do not contradict Mattievich, they merely failed to make reference to the serpent having three heads.
Besides, they are not the "only source",

“Cadmus’ dragon has three tongues (3,34 tres…. micant linguae) as have the serpents that guard the waters of Coeytus and Styx in Apuleius at 6, 15 (140,5) trisulca vibramina draconum, but also the dragon that is supposed to protect Jason’s golden fleece (Ovid met 7, 150)”

Those versed in Norse, Greek and Celtic mythology are aware that three is a most significant number in ancient story telling. As the Cadmus myth dates to at least 1000 B.C. it remains possible that the original dragon did have three tongues.

Reply

Only Me

8/22/2015 07:56:35 pm

Guess you ignored these lines in the last paragraph:

"Ovid is a very late Roman version of a Greek story, earlier forms of which did not specify three tongues." and "In short, the three-forked tongue and triple row of teeth were apparently Ovid’s addition to make the snake seem more fearsome. They don’t appear in any other Classical version before or after him."

I guess you ignored the following lines from Jason's quote:
"I'm not citing Hellenistic writers here because they were "right" about Cadmus but because they are the ONLY sources"
In a previous quote Jason stated that Hellenistic writers were unreliable yet he cites them when it suits his cause.
I don't necessarily agree with Matievich's conclusions, nor do I have an argument as you suggest. I just happen to think Jason should be fair in his criticisms and not contradict himself to make his point.
Does he accept Hellenistic writers as reliable sources? Yes or No?

Only Me

8/23/2015 06:23:58 pm

Your reasoning is still flawed. Regardless of whether Jason thinks Hellenistic writers are unreliable or not, if Mattievitch is using Ovid as the basis of his theory and other Hellenistic writers are the only other sources available, who then, is he supposed to cite? Dr. Seuss?

The only contradiction here is the one *you* see.

michael MacRae

8/24/2015 10:45:33 am

Jason is supposed to cite reliable sources. If he doesn't then his credibility as a critic is compromised.

Your acceptance of unreliable sources reflects your own credibility as a poster. Maybe you should go back to reading Dr Seuss.

Do you or Jason accept Hellenistic writers as reliable sources? Yes or No?

Reply

Only Me

8/24/2015 05:19:21 pm

*facepalm*

I can't believe you're hung up on a point that is irrelevant.

Mattievitch has based his "Greeks in Brazil" theory on his interpretation of Ovid's writings about a mythical serpent. It is necessary to examine the writings of other authors, who also mention the serpent, to determine if that interpretation has merit. Jason has stated that other authors agree on two key elements of the story: (a) the serpent lived in a specific, real-world location, and, (b) they all basically described it the same way. These facts allow one to justifiably conclude Ovid embellished the serpent's features in *his* version, allowing Jason to say, "They don’t appear in any other Classical version before or after him."

The reliability of the writers in question, including Ovid, is irrelevant because they were writing about a local myth. You said, "The Hellenistic writers you cited do not contradict Mattievich, they merely failed to make reference to the serpent having three heads." I'd like to know why you believe Ovid is the more faithful version of the myth if you believe the others, writing at a time closer to the myth's origins, are unreliable...and your last comment indicates you believe they *are* unreliable sources.

If Jason or I answer yes to your question, you'll say both of us have no credibility. If we answer no, then you say your criticism is valid (which it isn't). Nice try.

Reply

michael MacRae

8/25/2015 06:04:24 pm

Jason's opinion of Hellenistic writers is that:
" Their testimony is helpful only when supported by archaeology or
sources from the time period in question."

The writers he quoted were writing 800 years after the myth was created. How does that give them greater credibility over someone who was writing 1000 years after the myth was created? As I mentioned previously, the number 3 is arguably the most commonly used numeral in ancient mythology. Ovid, like Homer, had a remarkable array of material his disposal, so it would not surprise me if the original myth referred to three tongues as in the three heads of Cerebus etc.

I certainly don't agree that their is enough evidence to dismiss Matievich's premise entirely.

Reply

Only Me

8/25/2015 08:36:32 pm

Jason's opinion is correct.

The subject matter that Mattievich uses to form his theory is a myth. By default, you have to take all the versions of the myth within that context. To interpret the story as a real historical event, whereby Greeks traveled the Amazon and explored Brazil, there needs to be some form of archaeological or anthropological evidence to support that interpretation.

Someone writing about any topic 200 years prior to another writer may have more credibility by virtue of having access to information or other works that may no longer exist by the time of the later writer. I have no doubt Ovid had many sources to draw from, but you have to consider that among those sources might be the works of the earlier writers Jason specifically mentioned, among many more.

I agree with Jason that Mattievich's premise can be dismissed due to its very nature: an interpretation of one author's version of a myth. Absent archaeological evidence, it amounts to nothing more than a "What if?" question.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.